The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1887-06-06
THE ADAMS CASE.
Beginning of the Argument for the
Defence.
The Counsel Makes Some Strong
Points In the Case.
The Argument Not Finished on
Saturday.
Especial to the Press.1.

HALIFAX, June 4.-Before Chief Justice
Mcdonald In the Admiralty Court TODAY
Mr.. Meagher, council for the American
government for the defence of the captured
vessels, beganhis argument, the chief points
of which were that the Adams had no opportu-
mites for fishing inside the limits at Digby
to make it worth her while to fish there. and
the fact that bait was preserved in ice was
priindJ Jdcie evidence that it was to be used
in deep sea fishing. The allegation that the
vesseps name was concealed and that the
captain had lied was no evidence that she
mad violated the treaty by fishing. The bait
was bought openly. There was no conceal
ment. There was no evidence of an agency
between the captain and men from whom
he purchased bait and the statute relating to
fishing couldn't by any possibility be tortured
into fishing but agents of the Dominion law
had thrown the whole burden of proof or
innocence on the defendants. Neither treaty
nor the 1919 statute did that, and Canada had
no power to enact such legislation because
such statute had placed American vessels in
an entirely different position to that given
them under the treaty Canada had no
power to negotiate treaty and certainly
had none to abrogate any provision or
abridge any right secured to American fisher
men by the treaty. Of all the forfeitures ex-
cept the Nickerson none had been made for
preparing to fish, by procuring bait Ii
the Interpretation of the Crown in the pres
ent case was correct, no American vessel
sailing from Eastport to the banks could
pass within three miles of Cape Negro. Be
cause if while enjoying her undoubted right
of navigating the ocean, while passing along
the Canadian coast she washed her fish tubs
or performed other trifing acts that would
be preparing to fish and as she couldn't prove
her innocence she would be confiscated. He
argued that the treaty simply prevented
American vessels preparing in British
waters to fish in British waters, but never
contemplated preventing their preparing in
British waters to fish outside the limit 'Pre-
pairing to fish, was the intention of fishing
IN the immediate vicinity of where she lay
The building of vessel was as much pre-
pairing to fish as the purchase of bait. The
treaty permitted vessels to come in to repair
damage. He argued that 1t meant repairing
damage to bait and supplies that were abb
solutely necessary as well as triaing repairs
to the hull or gear. The judge interrupted
that he did not think Meagher could be
serious in this argument. Continuing the
counsel insisted that according to the inter-
pretation of the Crown an American vessel
could not come into land with rescued crew
of a wrecked Nova Scotia vessel without be-
ing liable to confiscation. 1t was absolutely
necessary for the Adams to come in and re-
pair the supply of bait repair which she
failed to obtain at Eastport, and which was
essential to prosecuting her voyage. The
words mo other purpose whatever should
be construed to mean no other purpose what
ever inconsistent with the intention of this
treaty. and that intention was simply to pro-
hibit preparations in British waters to fish
in British waters. Meagher win continue
his argument Monday.